Public outcry against town center development in Boxborough continues

Concerned residents filled the meeting room at Sargent Memorial Library for the latest public hearing on the proposed residential development in Boxborough Town Center on Monday night.

"I've received plenty of feedback through emails from residents, and 99 percent of them are opposed to this development," Planning Board chairman John Markiewicz said.

The proposed project would be a 100-unit senior housing development on a 60-acre wooded area near the center of town, mainly bordering Massachusetts Avenue, Stow Road and Burroughs Road. The area has been discussed for decades as a potential location for a town center, with town administration buildings, commercial areas and some small residential areas. However, the current property is owned by Boxborough Town Center LLC, who are looking to sell the property to Toll Brothers, a Pennsylvania-based luxury real-estate developer that has built similar communities in Methuen, Stow and Plymouth among other locations.

Resident concerns ranged from traffic and safety, to Boxbourough's water supply, to the threat the development posed to the town's rural nature.

Tim Rudolph, a resident of Patch Hill Road and a former town official, brought with him to the meeting a proposed plan from 2000 that would have created a town center. Rudolph's argument was that the new development was taking advantage of zoning bylaws set up for the town center plan 17 years ago.

"We had some residential areas over here, we had a lot of good shops, we would have had a beautiful town common, this was town center," Rudolph said, describing the proposed plan. "(This new development) isn't what this land was designed for. We had town commissions that don't make a lot of concessions such as the Conservation Commission make concessions for the old project, not for a residential area."

Further concerns were about the water supply, because all of Boxborough's water comes from wells, a large housing development would put a strain on a community lacking support from a larger regional water supply. One resident mentioned that particularly because of the unpredictable nature of the weather, an event such as a drought like the one that occurred last year, could prove particularly damaging if the development is constructed.

Board member Abby Reip expressed a concern about construction halting traffic in the area, particularly on Preist Lane, a small dead end street that will be closely abutted by the new development.

"I was once driving on Priest Lane and as I approached to take a left turn onto Burroughs Road a large construction vehicle was pulling out and it actually got stuck and caused a back-up of cars, so Priest Lane really isn't conducive to large vehicles," Reip said.

Robert Karess, a resident of Priest Lane went a step further in showing his disgust for the project's proximity to the street.

"You are basically annexing our neighborhood," Karress said.

Criticism was also launched at the Toll Brothers, who were featured in a Boston Globe story in 2001 reporting the company had been creating luxury buildings that failed minimum standards set by the state building codes. Dave Bauer, a division president at Toll Brothers, brushed off the accusations.

"I've been with the company for 13 years, the Boston Globe story was 16 years ago, I can't speak to that but what I can tell you is that you can go to the town of Stow, Methuen, Canton, Holliston, and about a dozen other towns that have had developments built under my watch and I'd be happy to consult with you about to consult with the zoning board, planning department, selectmen, the mayor; and I'd welcome you to ask questions about our reputation, because I'm very proud of it," Bauer said.

The proposed plan will not be voted on by the Planning Board until the public hearing has been closed. The hearing has been going on since January and according to Markiewicz will continue at the next board meeting on Oct. 2. While public has been strongly against the development, the board needs to prove probable cause to reject the plan.

"The town couldn't reject the plan simply because we didn't want it, that would never hold up as a defense in court," Boxborough Town Planner Adam Duchesneau said. "The town would need to have to prove that the development would violate zoning bylaws, so that whatever decision they had up making, they can point to the zoning bylaws as defense for how they voted."